had DOauthority to adjust such claims although he had the power to investigate them. Speaking as to the extent of his authority he testified:My business is to look after unclaimed refused freight damaged freight lost freight.That is all.The record shows that Mr. Dobel learning of the damage came to Owosso and in company with Mr. Mason the local agent called upon defendant. After being Informed by the defendant that it did not regard the sugar as belonging to it Mr. Dobel made an agreement with them to rework the sugar. Dobel testifies that withinhours he related these facts to his superior at Montreal. Within two or three days thereafter the sugar was delivered to the defendant and the work was done without any protest from Mr. Arnold or any other agent of the company. In July of the following year the Dobel agreement was repudiated by the plaintiff but it was not repudiated upon the ground that Dobel did not have Nike Shoes Australia the authority to make it. It was repudiated upon the ground that the damage was the result Coach Outlet Store Online of the act of God. We think these Nike Air Max 90 facts furnished the jury a basis for finding that the plaintiff had ratified the agreement with Mr. Dobel. It is shown by the uncontradicted testimony that plaintiff was advised of the damage and the agreement with defendant before the work was done. After being so advised it delivered the sugar to defendant. From this act and its silence thereafter anacquiescence on its part could properly be inferred by the jury. Hurley Nike Air Max v. WatsonMichN. W It is further contended In this connection that the plaintiff is not liable because there was no consideration for the agreement the damage having been caused by the tornado which was Coach Outlet Store Online an act of God. This contention is lacking in force if we keep In mind the theory of defendants claim. The position of defendant was after the damage accrued that the sugar had been delivered to the consignee by making delivery Nike Australia to the carrier and that its duty in the premises was at an end. In the face of this contention plaintiff made a contract wltb defendant to rework the sugar. The reworking of the sugar was the consideration for plaintiffs promise. Whether plaintiff was liable to Christian Louboutin Outlet either consignee or consignor for the damage to the sugar on the ground of negligence Is another question which we need not consider. Dobel evidently assumed that there was a liability or that the consignee would make such claim and in order to avoid it entered into the contract with defendant. It may be added by way of comment that if any error was committed by the trial court in connection with this question or the one involving the authority of Dobel it was not made against the plaintiff. . Plaintiff requested a directed verdict. This was based upon a letter written by defendant to the Grand Trunk Railway System In July making a claim for delay in transporting beets to its factory during the previous season. At the close of the letter it stated:We are Christian Louboutin Outlet withholding payment of your charges against this company for demurrage accruing during the past season pending a settlement of this claim.The difficulty with this contention is that this claimed admission was made to the Grand Trunk Railway System and not to the plaintiff. The defendant conceded that it owed the plaintifffor demurrage and it was taken into account by the jury. The most that can be said of the claimed admission is that It was a conditional promise to the Grand Trunk Railway System to pay whatever demurrage it owed to the several lines if that Coach Outlet Store Online